3 ms·

Are you genuinely advocating the limitless disclosure of nude images of people, with no legal recourse to prevent that? Am I grossly misunderstanding this case

Are you genuinely advocating the limitless disclosure of nude images of people, with no legal recourse to prevent that? Am I grossly misunderstanding this case?

millstone 10y ago
The critique of Thiel is not about the particulars of this case. Say there was some absurd exculpatory event, like it comes out that Hogan paid Gawker to publish the video. It ultimately wouldn't matter: Thiel would continue to locate and fund lawsuits against Gawker. The concern is that this is a generic strategy for destroying any media org you dislike. Simply locate and fund any and all lawsuits, forever. Any critical story could be libel. Any publishing of secrets could be an invasion of privacy. A weak case can be pumped up with enough money. Eventually the billionaire wins the war of attrition. This is not hypothetical. Mother Jones was similarly attacked for publishing Mitt Romney's 47% comments. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander... This is the very definition of a chilling effect on free speech!
- eridius 10y ago
  And yet the alternative is to allow vile publications like Gawker to continue to cause damage to the general public without anyone able to stand up to them. It's also important to point out that Thiel is not manufacturing bogus cases to try and overwhelm a company with lawsuits. He's trying to find legitimate victims of Gawker and fund their lawsuits. These aren't frivolous claims, they're merely claims that the victims may not have been able to afford to file otherwise.
- zwerdlds 10y ago
  Yeah I'm with you on that angle. Dumping money onto lawyers to attack people you don't like costs them legal fees to simply defend themselves. The post I was responding to was advocating apparently limitless free speech, though. Chilling effects SHOULD apply to certain things, and unapproved pornography of yourself maybe should be one of those? Limitless speech but limited recourse isn't worth advocating, IMO.

Are you genuinely advocating the limitless disclosure of nude images of people, with no legal recourse to prevent that? Am I grossly misunderstanding this case?

millstone 10y ago

The critique of Thiel is not about the particulars of this case. Say there was some absurd exculpatory event, like it comes out that Hogan paid Gawker to publish the video. It ultimately wouldn't matter: Thiel would continue to locate and fund lawsuits against Gawker. The concern is that this is a generic strategy for destroying any media org you dislike. Simply locate and fund any and all lawsuits, forever. Any critical story could be libel. Any publishing of secrets could be an invasion of privacy. A weak case can be pumped up with enough money. Eventually the billionaire wins the war of attrition. This is not hypothetical. Mother Jones was similarly attacked for publishing Mitt Romney's 47% comments. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander... This is the very definition of a chilling effect on free speech!

eridius 10y ago
And yet the alternative is to allow vile publications like Gawker to continue to cause damage to the general public without anyone able to stand up to them. It's also important to point out that Thiel is not manufacturing bogus cases to try and overwhelm a company with lawsuits. He's trying to find legitimate victims of Gawker and fund their lawsuits. These aren't frivolous claims, they're merely claims that the victims may not have been able to afford to file otherwise.
zwerdlds 10y ago
Yeah I'm with you on that angle. Dumping money onto lawyers to attack people you don't like costs them legal fees to simply defend themselves. The post I was responding to was advocating apparently limitless free speech, though. Chilling effects SHOULD apply to certain things, and unapproved pornography of yourself maybe should be one of those? Limitless speech but limited recourse isn't worth advocating, IMO.